Korean Air 2708 at HND
Question from SLF, if you don't mind:
With reference to the slide being blown underneath the aircraft, as reported by another poster, is this something that happens often?
I'm wondering if the wind was particularly strong; if so then it was very fortunate that the plane was facing the way it was, so that the fire and heat were channelled away from the cabin.
I don't know if this was deliberate on the part of the crew, in terms of turning the plane relative to the wind before stopping?
In which case a slide being blown under is, I suppose, the lesser of two evils?
With reference to the slide being blown underneath the aircraft, as reported by another poster, is this something that happens often?
I'm wondering if the wind was particularly strong; if so then it was very fortunate that the plane was facing the way it was, so that the fire and heat were channelled away from the cabin.
I don't know if this was deliberate on the part of the crew, in terms of turning the plane relative to the wind before stopping?
In which case a slide being blown under is, I suppose, the lesser of two evils?
Last edited by susier; 28th May 2016 at 07:34.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The incident occurred at about 0335Z (1235 LT) 27MAY. (FR24)
Take off attempted on runway 34R
METAR for this period:
SA 27/05/2016 01:30->
METAR RJTT 270130Z 04024KT 6000 -SHRA FEW005 SCT009 BKN020
19/18 Q1008 TEMPO FEW005 BKN008 RMK 2ST005 4ST009
6CU020 A2977=
SP 27/05/2016 01:43->
SPECI RJTT 270143Z 04020KT 6000 -SHRA FEW005 BKN009 BKN012
19/18 Q1008 RMK 1ST005 6CU009 7CU012 A2979=
SA 27/05/2016 02:00->
METAR RJTT 270200Z 04020KT 7000 -SHRA FEW008 BKN009 BKN012
19/18 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 2CU008 6CU009 7CU012 A2978
MOD TURB OBS AT 0143Z 5NM W MESSE 4000FT BY A320=
SA 27/05/2016 02:30->
METAR RJTT 270230Z 04016KT 9999 -SHRA FEW009 BKN010 BKN013
19/18 Q1009 TEMPO FEW005 BKN008 RMK 1CU009 6CU010
7CU013 A2980=
SA 27/05/2016 03:00->
METAR RJTT 270300Z 05019KT 9999 -SHRA FEW010 SCT015 BKN035
19/17 Q1009 TEMPO FEW005 BKN008 RMK 1CU010 3CU015
6CU035 A2980=
SA 27/05/2016 03:30->
METAR RJTT 270330Z 06020KT 9999 FEW008 SCT013 BKN018 19/18
Q1009 TEMPO FEW005 BKN008 RMK 1CU008 3CU013 6CU018
A2980=
SA 27/05/2016 04:00->
METAR RJTT 270400Z 06021KT 9999 -SHRA FEW008 SCT020 BKN060
19/17 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 1CU008 4CU020 7SC060 A2979=
SA 27/05/2016 04:30->
METAR RJTT 270430Z 06022KT 9999 -SHRA FEW010 BKN016 BKN060
19/16 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 1CU010 5CU016 7SC060 A2979=
SA 27/05/2016 05:00->
METAR RJTT 270500Z 06021KT 9999 -SHRA FEW012 SCT015 BKN020
19/16 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 1CU012 3CU015 5SC020 A2979=
SA 27/05/2016 05:30->
METAR RJTT 270530Z 07018KT 9999 -SHRA FEW012 SCT014 BKN016
18/17 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 1CU012 4CU014 6SC016 A2979=
(Source OGIMET.COM)
Take off attempted on runway 34R
METAR for this period:
SA 27/05/2016 01:30->
METAR RJTT 270130Z 04024KT 6000 -SHRA FEW005 SCT009 BKN020
19/18 Q1008 TEMPO FEW005 BKN008 RMK 2ST005 4ST009
6CU020 A2977=
SP 27/05/2016 01:43->
SPECI RJTT 270143Z 04020KT 6000 -SHRA FEW005 BKN009 BKN012
19/18 Q1008 RMK 1ST005 6CU009 7CU012 A2979=
SA 27/05/2016 02:00->
METAR RJTT 270200Z 04020KT 7000 -SHRA FEW008 BKN009 BKN012
19/18 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 2CU008 6CU009 7CU012 A2978
MOD TURB OBS AT 0143Z 5NM W MESSE 4000FT BY A320=
SA 27/05/2016 02:30->
METAR RJTT 270230Z 04016KT 9999 -SHRA FEW009 BKN010 BKN013
19/18 Q1009 TEMPO FEW005 BKN008 RMK 1CU009 6CU010
7CU013 A2980=
SA 27/05/2016 03:00->
METAR RJTT 270300Z 05019KT 9999 -SHRA FEW010 SCT015 BKN035
19/17 Q1009 TEMPO FEW005 BKN008 RMK 1CU010 3CU015
6CU035 A2980=
SA 27/05/2016 03:30->
METAR RJTT 270330Z 06020KT 9999 FEW008 SCT013 BKN018 19/18
Q1009 TEMPO FEW005 BKN008 RMK 1CU008 3CU013 6CU018
A2980=
SA 27/05/2016 04:00->
METAR RJTT 270400Z 06021KT 9999 -SHRA FEW008 SCT020 BKN060
19/17 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 1CU008 4CU020 7SC060 A2979=
SA 27/05/2016 04:30->
METAR RJTT 270430Z 06022KT 9999 -SHRA FEW010 BKN016 BKN060
19/16 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 1CU010 5CU016 7SC060 A2979=
SA 27/05/2016 05:00->
METAR RJTT 270500Z 06021KT 9999 -SHRA FEW012 SCT015 BKN020
19/16 Q1009 NOSIG RMK 1CU012 3CU015 5SC020 A2979=
SA 27/05/2016 05:30->
METAR RJTT 270530Z 07018KT 9999 -SHRA FEW012 SCT014 BKN016
18/17 Q1008 NOSIG RMK 1CU012 4CU014 6SC016 A2979=
(Source OGIMET.COM)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just wondering whether a central-locking system for the bins that activated in the event of an evacuation would help ? On the other hand, even if they'd been told a hundred times in advance, there would still be people struggling to open the bins to get their stuff, or arguing with the FAs that they needed their hand luggage - all in the middle of an evacuation. Probably slow everyone down wouldn't it ?
I think you've answered your own question.
As a general rule, demonstrated regularly here on PPRuNe, a simple solution to long-standing, complex problem rarely turns out to be either simple or a solution.
As a general rule, demonstrated regularly here on PPRuNe, a simple solution to long-standing, complex problem rarely turns out to be either simple or a solution.
There were some horrendous mistakes at Narita because of the abiguity of certain words in English and American. "Take the next left" off the runway meant something to the Cathay pilot that the control tower were not expecting, for example..
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding PAX taking hand luggage in an evacuation, it apparently is common enough that if it is really dangerous, it should already have killed or injured someone. Has it?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jolihokistix
There were some horrendous mistakes at Narita because of the abiguity of certain words in English and American. "Take the next left" off the runway meant something to the Cathay pilot that the control tower were not expecting, for example..
All this talk about who has the ultimate authority to act ignores the fact that a punitive culture exists there. At the moment the boss is at war with the pilot union-the union is suing its own CEO for saying flying is easier than driving a car.
Right now there will be a team of henchmen listening to the CVR and ATC tapes, checking the FDR and examining the whole incident to see if the union member captain missed one single standard callout or missed one single micromanaged, overprescriptive procedure.
Then he will be able to go public and discredit them in order to deny their demand for a pay rise.
Right now there will be a team of henchmen listening to the CVR and ATC tapes, checking the FDR and examining the whole incident to see if the union member captain missed one single standard callout or missed one single micromanaged, overprescriptive procedure.
Then he will be able to go public and discredit them in order to deny their demand for a pay rise.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dallas
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PersonFromPorlock
Regarding PAX taking hand luggage in an evacuation, it apparently is common enough that if it is really dangerous, it should already have killed or injured someone. Has it?
33M, why should we condone your actions opposed to the behaviour of the other passenger. Both are aspects of human behaviour; theirs with a unique understanding of the situation at the time, yours with hindsight.
Risk management involves a realistic balance of potential hazards in a range of foreseeable contexts.
What might the balance be between a fit able passenger retrieving a bag vs a frail elderly passenger in the isle seat; and how might their actions change if the fire/smoke was in the cabin vs outside and might not be seen.
cf Cranfield University studies - Helen Miur; IIRC, the dominant issues were age, incentive - perception of threat, location and type/size of exit.
Also see http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/15oc...ct03-HMuir.pdf
Risk management involves a realistic balance of potential hazards in a range of foreseeable contexts.
What might the balance be between a fit able passenger retrieving a bag vs a frail elderly passenger in the isle seat; and how might their actions change if the fire/smoke was in the cabin vs outside and might not be seen.
cf Cranfield University studies - Helen Miur; IIRC, the dominant issues were age, incentive - perception of threat, location and type/size of exit.
Also see http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/15oc...ct03-HMuir.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would certainly hope, for humanities sake, that we would help the frail elderly passenger in the isle seat. If someone cannot think of others in this time of danger.....
We are a sorry lot if we value our clothes over the life of another human.
We are a sorry lot if we value our clothes over the life of another human.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Milton Keynes-on-sea
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with you WR. I would take my mobile phone as well as wallet and passport so I can let nearest and dearest i got out. Sure, I would stop to help the obligatory frail/elderly, but never stop to take a selfie! That seem to be a common sense approach to deal with an evacuation but it doesn't ever seem to pan out that way.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ PEI_3721
I think they were just finishing up those studies when i was at Cranfield. I seem to recall there was a five pound "prize" for being in the first 50% out of the aircraft. That alone was sufficient incentive to prompt some truly noteworthy enthusiasm to get out the aircraft. I recall being told one particularly keen chap basically took a "superman" dive through the doorway ...
... the dominant issues were age, incentive ...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: FRA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update 2017: Turbine rupture caused 2016 Korean Air fire
NHK World has reported the following today:
The Japan Transport Safety Board has determined that a fuel leak in an engine turbine caused the fire that broke out on a Korean Air passenger plane at an airport in Tokyo last year.
The left engine of the Boeing 777 caught fire shortly before takeoff in May of last year. The passenger jet was about to depart Haneda Airport for Seoul.
All passengers and crewmembers evacuated the plane. Nine passengers sustained injuries.
An inspection of the engine by board technical analysts found that the turbine blades were broken.
Further investigations have determined that the engine kept running and prompted abnormal vibrations, which caused three ruptures within the malfunctioning turbine.
One of the ruptures was 34 centimeters long.
Board members say those ruptures caused fuel to leak and spark a fire.
Japan's transport ministry says it has officially categorized the fire as an aviation accident.
The Japan Transport Safety Board has determined that a fuel leak in an engine turbine caused the fire that broke out on a Korean Air passenger plane at an airport in Tokyo last year.
The left engine of the Boeing 777 caught fire shortly before takeoff in May of last year. The passenger jet was about to depart Haneda Airport for Seoul.
All passengers and crewmembers evacuated the plane. Nine passengers sustained injuries.
An inspection of the engine by board technical analysts found that the turbine blades were broken.
Further investigations have determined that the engine kept running and prompted abnormal vibrations, which caused three ruptures within the malfunctioning turbine.
One of the ruptures was 34 centimeters long.
Board members say those ruptures caused fuel to leak and spark a fire.
Japan's transport ministry says it has officially categorized the fire as an aviation accident.
Aviation Herald has photo of damaged Stage 1 Turbine blade, and quotes the report as saying that vibrations from the damaged turbine cracked the fuel/oil heat exchanger (among other things) which was then the source of the fuel leak...
Accident: Korean B773 at Tokyo on May 27th 2016, rejected takeoff due to engine fire
Accident: Korean B773 at Tokyo on May 27th 2016, rejected takeoff due to engine fire
Thanks
That's a lot more than a turbine blade failure. With a partially fractured disk the imbalance would be high enough to challenge the shaft support system as well. Sounds like one of the rare few cases where run-on made the situation worse.
That's a lot more than a turbine blade failure. With a partially fractured disk the imbalance would be high enough to challenge the shaft support system as well. Sounds like one of the rare few cases where run-on made the situation worse.
